MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Portrait du précepteur en renard

2008· article· fr· W1608635277 on OpenAlex
Michel Fabre

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉducation & didactique · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRousseau and Enlightenment Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On soutient ici deux thèses étroitement articulées. La première voit dans l’Émile une pédagogie de la ruse qui renoue avec la métis des Grecs. Rousseau peint le précepteur en Renard et fait de la pédagogie une sorte de cynégétique concevant des pièges pour apprendre qui constituent autant de situations problèmes à finalité didactique et plus largement, éducative. La deuxième thèse voit dans les Fables de la Fontaine le modèle même de la situation éducative : Émile apprend des situations dont il doit tirer lui-même la leçon. Ainsi le pédagogue doit-il faire parler les choses mêmes, en retrouvant, par delà la rhétorique verbeuse des modernes, l’éloquence des anciens qui vise à montrer et non à représenter. C’est l’actualité didactique, ses problèmes et ses concepts qui rend possible cette lecture de Rousseau, laquelle révèle en retour le fond impensé et souvent même refoulé de nos technologies éducatives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it